CHELERAM N . PANCHAL, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 737/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70605 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARESH JOHRI DR
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI . . , BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND , SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.TA. NO.737/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CHELARAM M. PANCHAL, FLAT NO. 8, SHREE KRISHNA NIWAS, VADAVALI SECTION, AMBERNATH(E) MUMBAI 421501. PAN: AGIPP1965D VS. ITO WD 2(1) MUMBAI. ( ! / APPELLANT ) ( '# ! / RESPONDENT ) ! $ / APPELLANT BY : NONE '# ! % $ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PARESH JOHRI (DR). & % '( / DATE OF HEARING : 05 -08-2013 )*+ % '( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 -08-2013 , / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY TH E APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17-09-2010 OF THE CIT(A)-II, THANE, MUMBAI: 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF RS. 11 ,79,375 ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS (GENUINE) TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 4 3,750 TOWARDS INTEREST PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ESTIMATION OF EXPEND ITURE OF RS. 86,944 INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF RS. 5, 000 ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCTION BY THE APPELLANT TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT INTERFERING WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/ S 144 OF THE ACT. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, DEL ETE, CHANGE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 05-08-2013. BUT, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS I.TA. NO. 737/MUM/2011 CHELARAM M. PANCHAL 2 LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN TH IS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 3. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRO VISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( . . / B.R. MITTAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, .& DATE: 5 TH AUGUST, 2013 SK , % ''/ 0/+' , % ''/ 0/+' , % ''/ 0/+' , % ''/ 0/+' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE #/' '' //TRUE COPY// ,& ,& ,& ,& / BY ORDER, 1 11 1 / 2 2 2 2 DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI